I think his name is Clutters. I was just told that he was hurt on OH's first offensive play,and that he did not return to the game.

Clusters #32, if the injury is exactly what I heard he's out. He's HUGE for them both offensively and defensively, just don't think they'll pull this out without him. Meadowbrook played a superior schedule and lost close games to some really good teams. Going with Meadowbrook by 3-4 scores

I think his name is Clutters. I was just told that he was hurt on OH's first offensive play,and that he did not return to the game.

Clusters #32, if the injury is exactly what I heard he's out. He's HUGE for them both offensively and defensively, just don't think they'll pull this out without him. Meadowbrook played a superior schedule and lost close games to some really good teams. Going with Meadowbrook by 3-4 scores

If losing your best running back is not bad enough, the fact that you're 98% running team, I'm afraid this one will get ugly pretty quick.

The onside kick that almost turned into a brawl is 1:03.30
Never heard a microphoned ref before say something like there are too many personal fouls on the play and we don't know the players numbers so no one is ejected.

The onside kick that almost turned into a brawl is 1:03.30
Never heard a microphoned ref before say something like there are too many personal fouls on the play and we don't know the players numbers so no one is ejected.

The onside kick hit was two kids diving for a ball and was a 50 50 call. Definitely not an ejection situation. But there were 30 players from cambridge on the field which would have required a lot of ejections. It was a hot mess. Took 10 mins or more to get the game going again.

The onside kick that almost turned into a brawl is 1:03.30
Never heard a microphoned ref before say something like there are too many personal fouls on the play and we don't know the players numbers so no one is ejected.

The onside kick hit was two kids diving for a ball and was a 50 50 call. Definitely not an ejection situation. But there were 30 players from cambridge on the field which would have required a lot of ejections. It was a hot mess. Took 10 mins or more to get the game going again.

Couldn’t sleep last night I watched the game Oaks are gonna have a tough time! Get out there and get after it big uglies!

The onside kick that almost turned into a brawl is 1:03.30
Never heard a microphoned ref before say something like there are too many personal fouls on the play and we don't know the players numbers so no one is ejected.

Teach, that's not what the official said. He said the call was targeting but they didn't have a number so nobody was being ejected. The officiating crew was notified prior to the start of the game about this play. The team had run that in several other games and a player on the receiving team had been targeted (on several occassions) with no penalty, other than for not allowing the ball to travel 10 yards. Yes, on this film it is not as obvious and the player appears to be going for the ball so I can understand a no call (other than a penalty for ball not travelling 10 yards before contact). However, because of previous film showing that wasn't the case, the officials were notified prior to the game and the officials did call targeting which should have resulted in an ejection of the player who targeted.

The onside kick that almost turned into a brawl is 1:03.30
Never heard a microphoned ref before say something like there are too many personal fouls on the play and we don't know the players numbers so no one is ejected.

Teach, that's not what the official said. He said the call was targeting but they didn't have a number so nobody was being ejected. The officiating crew was notified prior to the start of the game about this play. The team had run that in several other games and a player on the receiving team had been targeted (on several occassions) with no penalty, other than for not allowing the ball to travel 10 yards. Yes, on this film it is not as obvious and the player appears to be going for the ball so I can understand a no call (other than a penalty for ball not travelling 10 yards before contact). However, because of previous film showing that wasn't the case, the officials were notified prior to the game and the officials did call targeting which should have resulted in an ejection of the player who targeted.

The onside kick that almost turned into a brawl is 1:03.30
Never heard a microphoned ref before say something like there are too many personal fouls on the play and we don't know the players numbers so no one is ejected.

Teach, that's not what the official said. He said the call was targeting but they didn't have a number so nobody was being ejected. The officiating crew was notified prior to the start of the game about this play. The team had run that in several other games and a player on the receiving team had been targeted (on several occassions) with no penalty, other than for not allowing the ball to travel 10 yards. Yes, on this film it is not as obvious and the player appears to be going for the ball so I can understand a no call (other than a penalty for ball not travelling 10 yards before contact). However, because of previous film showing that wasn't the case, the officials were notified prior to the game and the officials did call targeting which should have resulted in an ejection of the player who targeted.

So an uncalled penalty from a previous game should dictate that THIS play was a penalty and targeting? Makes zero sense. But one thing you are forgeting is the 30 blue team players on the field and ZERO bench players from the colts were on the field. So we trade one guy for your 20 ejections.
It was NOT a cheap shot. It was two guys going for the football. Also because the official announced it warranted an ejection doesn't mean he is correct.
You said it yourself it didn't look like it was targeting and I'm pretty sure past occurances have nothing to do with it.

Sour grapes?

Last edited by Brutus87 on Wed Oct 31, 2018 9:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I don't know how many yards were given up, but I think it was against Chesapeake. I didn't see the game, but I think even the Chesapeake fans would tell you it was the worse game that the Peake has played in years. It must have shocked the Peake quite a bit, as they then turned around and played pretty good the rest of the year.

The onside kick that almost turned into a brawl is 1:03.30
Never heard a microphoned ref before say something like there are too many personal fouls on the play and we don't know the players numbers so no one is ejected.

Teach, that's not what the official said. He said the call was targeting but they didn't have a number so nobody was being ejected. The officiating crew was notified prior to the start of the game about this play. The team had run that in several other games and a player on the receiving team had been targeted (on several occassions) with no penalty, other than for not allowing the ball to travel 10 yards. Yes, on this film it is not as obvious and the player appears to be going for the ball so I can understand a no call (other than a penalty for ball not travelling 10 yards before contact). However, because of previous film showing that wasn't the case, the officials were notified prior to the game and the officials did call targeting which should have resulted in an ejection of the player who targeted.

So an uncalled penalty from a previous game should dictate that THIS play was a penalty and targeting? Makes zero sense. But one thing you are forgeting is the 30 blue team players on the field and ZERO bench players from the colts were on the field. So we trade one guy for your 20 ejections.
It was NOT a cheap shot. It was two guys going for the football. Also because the official announced it warranted an ejection doesn't mean he is correct.
You said it yourself it didn't look like it was targeting and I'm pretty sure past occurances have nothing to do with it.

Sour grapes?

The officials called targeting and a 15 yard penalty was enforced, so I don't understand why you're upset with me. I simply stated why the officials were made aware of the play prior to the game. Nowhere in my post did I say it was a cheap shot nor was I complaining about anything, just letting Teach know what the official said. Why so defensive? Relax. Good luck Sat.

Teach, that's not what the official said. He said the call was targeting but they didn't have a number so nobody was being ejected. The officiating crew was notified prior to the start of the game about this play. The team had run that in several other games and a player on the receiving team had been targeted (on several occassions) with no penalty, other than for not allowing the ball to travel 10 yards. Yes, on this film it is not as obvious and the player appears to be going for the ball so I can understand a no call (other than a penalty for ball not travelling 10 yards before contact). However, because of previous film showing that wasn't the case, the officials were notified prior to the game and the officials did call targeting which should have resulted in an ejection of the player who targeted.

So an uncalled penalty from a previous game should dictate that THIS play was a penalty and targeting? Makes zero sense. But one thing you are forgeting is the 30 blue team players on the field and ZERO bench players from the colts were on the field. So we trade one guy for your 20 ejections.
It was NOT a cheap shot. It was two guys going for the football. Also because the official announced it warranted an ejection doesn't mean he is correct.
You said it yourself it didn't look like it was targeting and I'm pretty sure past occurances have nothing to do with it.

Sour grapes?

The officials called targeting and a 15 yard penalty was enforced, so I don't understand why you're upset with me. I simply stated why the officials were made aware of the play prior to the game. Nowhere in my post did I say it was a cheap shot nor was I complaining about anything, just letting Teach know what the official said. Why so defensive? Relax. Good luck Sat.

Lol , I am not buying it. I wonder if you think the OHSAA should be notified of the hit? You know exactly what i am talking about. But moving on. Have a nice day.

So an uncalled penalty from a previous game should dictate that THIS play was a penalty and targeting? Makes zero sense. But one thing you are forgeting is the 30 blue team players on the field and ZERO bench players from the colts were on the field. So we trade one guy for your 20 ejections.
It was NOT a cheap shot. It was two guys going for the football. Also because the official announced it warranted an ejection doesn't mean he is correct.
You said it yourself it didn't look like it was targeting and I'm pretty sure past occurances have nothing to do with it.

Sour grapes?

The officials called targeting and a 15 yard penalty was enforced, so I don't understand why you're upset with me. I simply stated why the officials were made aware of the play prior to the game. Nowhere in my post did I say it was a cheap shot nor was I complaining about anything, just letting Teach know what the official said. Why so defensive? Relax. Good luck Sat.

Lol , I am not buying it. I wonder if you think the OHSAA should be notified of the hit? You know exactly what i am talking about. But moving on. Have a nice day.

I absolutely said that after watching it live and knowing that they have done it before. After watching the film, I have no problem saying otherwise. You can't definitively tell if he was going for the ball or not from the film, so a no call for targeting is fine with me.